5.  Mr Oliver Varga (the first applicant), is a Slovakian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Veľké Kapušany. He is the brother of Mr Barnabáš Varga (the second applicant), a Slovakian national who was born in 1954 and died on 19 May 2009. After his death the first applicant, as his brother’s sole heir, expressed the wish to pursue the application in the second applicant’s stead.
6.  In 1981 several plots of land situated in Veľké Kapušany were expropriated from the applicants’ family. Their ownership was later transferred to the Veľké Kapušany municipality. Under a contract of 25 July 1991 that municipality transferred the ownership of the plots to a gas distribution company. The applicants’ mother, and, after her death in 1993 the applicants, claimed restitution of the plots.
7.  The municipality refused to restore one of the plots to the applicants’ mother under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991, on the ground that it had been transferred to a legal person. She therefore brought an action with the Trebišov District Court.
8.  On 24 April 1995 the District Court ordered the Veľké Kapušany municipality to conclude a contract with the applicants under which the plot in issue would be restored to them. The judgment transferred to the applicants ownership rights in respect of the plot with effect from the date it became final.
9.  The District Court established that the municipality possessed the plot at the time of the entry into force of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991, on 1 April 1991. The subsequent transfer of the plot to a company was void, as section 9(1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991 prohibited transfer of property falling under that Act to third parties after its entry into force.
10.  On 27 June 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment.
11.  As a result, the plot was restored to the applicants.
12.  On 16 March 2004 the applicants claimed restitution of a different plot of land with a surface area of 593 square metres by virtue of Law no. 503/2003 on Restoration of Land Ownership (“the 2003 Act”).
13.  On 27 July 2005 the District Land Office in Michalovce found, with reference to section 6(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, that ownership of the plot could not be restored to the applicants, as it was owned by a legal person. The decision acknowledged that under section 6(2) of the 2003 Act, the applicants were entitled either to have an alternative plot of land owned by the State transferred to them or to financial compensation. The redress was to be provided by the Slovak Land Fund.
14.  The first applicant sought judicial review of the administrative decision. He argued that the administrative authority had not decided within the time-limit laid down in section 49 of the Administrative Proceedings Act 1967, and that section 6(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, excluding restitution of the plot on the ground that it was owned by a legal person, was enacted with effect from 1 May 2004, that is after the proceedings had been brought. That provision should not, therefore, have been applied to his claim with retroactive effect. Finally, the first applicant argued that the expropriation of the land in 1981 and its transfer to a company in 1991 had been unlawful.
15.  On 21 February 2006 the Košice Regional Court upheld the administrative decision of 27 July 2005. It held that the Land Office had decided in accordance with the law as in force at the material time. The Regional Court considered the argument that the plot was not being used for the purpose for which it had been expropriated irrelevant, as it was uncontested that the applicants were entitled to redress pursuant to the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act.
16.  On 17 January 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment. It held that the Regional Court had established all relevant facts and had applied the relevant law correctly. The judgment indicated that the thirty-day period set out in section 49 of the Administrative Proceedings Act 1967 was of a procedural nature. A failure by an administrative authority to respect it did not affect the legal position of parties to the proceedings. It was nevertheless open to parties who considered themselves affected to claim compensation in accordance with special law. The Supreme Court further confirmed the conclusion that, since the applicants were clearly entitled to redress under the 2003 Act, it was superfluous to take further evidence or to examine the lawfulness of the expropriation of the property in 1981 and its subsequent transfer to a different person in 1991.
17.  The decision on the applicants’ claim became final on 21 February 2007.
18.  On 23 April 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They alleged a breach of their constitutional right to judicial protection in the proceedings on their restitution claim of 16 March 2004. They claimed that the transfer of their land in the same area to a gas distribution company on 25 July 1991 had been found contrary to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991. The courts, dealing with their first restitution claim, had declared that transfer void on that ground. The courts dealing with their second restitution claim had disregarded their argument in that respect. They further argued that the ordinary courts’ conclusion, that the newly enacted section 6(1)(a) of the 2003 Act was to be applied to their case, was contrary to the constitutional principle of legal certainty and prohibition of laws having retroactive effects.
19.  On 6 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It found no appearance of unlawfulness or arbitrariness in the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Reference by the applicants to the fact that the transfer of their land to a company had been found unlawful in the context of a different set of proceedings under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991 was not capable of undermining the conclusion the Supreme Court had reached in the proceedings under consideration governed by a different piece of legislation. The administrative authority and ordinary courts had decided in accordance with the relevant law then in force. In the context of the proceedings introduced by the applicants the Constitutional Court lacked the power to examine whether that law was in conformity with the Constitution.
20.  The Constitutional Court’s decision became final on 19 February 2008.
21.  The applicants’ right to claim either an alternative plot of land or financial compensation from the Slovak Land Fund as foreseen by section 6(2) and (8) of the 2003 Act lapsed on 21 February 2010, as they had not availed themselves of that right before that date.